MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2061064612 · doi:10.2307/3315982

Bayesian assessment of goodness of fit against nonparametric alternatives

2000· article· en· W2061064612 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Statistics · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBayesian Methods and Mixture Models
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGoodness of fitNonparametric statisticsChi-square testBayesian probabilityBayes factorParametric statisticsStatistical hypothesis testingMathematicsStatisticsBayes' theoremComputer scienceEconometricsData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The classical chi‐square test of goodness of fit compares the hypothesis that data arise from some parametric family of distributions, against the nonparametric alternative that they arise from some other distribution. However, the chi‐square test requires continuous data to be grouped into arbitrary categories. Furthermore, as the test is based upon an approximation, it can only be used if there are sufficient data. In practice, these requirements are often wasteful of information and overly restrictive. The authors explore the use of the fractional Bayes factor to obtain a Bayesian alternative to the chi‐square test when no specific prior information is available. They consider the extent to which their methodology can handle small data sets and continuous data without arbitrary grouping.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.863
Threshold uncertainty score0.449

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.269 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it